turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Barry Goldwater
We've finally got a decent picture of him as a young man--at least I'm pretty sure that's him, circa 1950. You wouldn't think it would be so hard to find a good picture of him from his youth. Turtle Fan 21:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC) A yes, those wrinkles just vanished. It's him. TR 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Wait, he hit the sergeants-at-arms on the House floor? Can't you be removed from office for that? Turtle Fan 17:18, January 31, 2011 (UTC) Vice Presidential Candidate When was he a candidate? TR (talk) 16:42, October 28, 2015 (UTC) There was a write-in campaign in the Deep South in 1960 where 15 "unpledged electors" from Mississippi and Alabama voted for Sen. Harry Byrd as Prez. Most voted for Strom Thurmond as Veep, but one voted for Goldwater.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:23, October 28, 2015 (UTC) :That's really tenuous. Even in the context of this broad category, that's really really reaching. TR (talk) 19:44, October 28, 2015 (UTC) :Yeah, if he never sought the office, he wasn't a candidate. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:57, October 28, 2015 (UTC) Rocky Instead of Goldwater (An Alternate 1964 US Presidential Election) We all know how Barry Goldwater did against Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 Us Presidential Election. What do any of you guys think would have happened if New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller won the Republican nomination instead of Goldwater? That sounds like an interesting scenario. IMO, while I'm pretty sure that Rocky would have done considerably better the Goldwater, he would've still lost to Johnson by a decent margin. I picture Rocky winning Upper New England (Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont), his home state of New York, Indiana, most of the Rocky Mountain and Plains states (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, ect.) and possibly Alaska. Johnson would've likely carried most of the remaining states and win the election. However, with two Liberal/moderates running for office, this would alienate the Southern segregationist Democrats and one of them (such as Strom Thurmond, Robert Bryd or George Wallace) would likely run in this situation, as well. The Southern Democratic candidate would carry the Deep South (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina and Georgia. Also, if a Southern Segregationist Democrat runs, Florida and Virginia likely flip to Rockefeller due to vote splitting and wins both states with pluralities. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 17:45, April 23, 2019 (UTC) :I don't think I'd care to do a state-by-state analysis, but I think the gist of what you say is right: Johnson has a slightly smaller landslide, with the states he loses being very different this time. :Long term effects of this could be interesting. In 1960 Nixon captured about a third of the black vote, but the GOP's nomination of a full-throated segregationist brought an abrupt end to blacks voting Republican in significant numbers ever again. Perhaps that trend is arrested in this version of '64, perhaps only slowed. The Southern Strategy maybe never gets adopted. Southern whites may well do the Dixiecrat thing in '64 as they'd done in '68, but I should hope that, not too many election cycles after that, they would have too much shame to award electoral votes to candidates who openly call for segregation. :X out Goldwater's other distasteful policy preferences, and in the later twentieth century there's no prophet of Libertopia that the crony capitalist nuts can refer back to. A centrist GOP and consensus that we should acknowledge the need of big government in the modern era, and embrace it as a force for good, rather than rely on it while shit-talking and throwing the Libertopians regular rations of red meat, could give us a much kinder, gentler Republican party and more consistent economic policy. :All right, I'm indulging in wish fulfillment now. Rockefeller had plenty of flaws that I don't want to whitewash. However, you look at the current state of the Republicans and it's pretty hard not to conclude that they're the worst of all possible futures, and that changing anything about their history could only improve them. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:07, April 25, 2019 (UTC) ::Speaking of Richard Nixon, Turtle Fan, if Rockefeller got the nomination in '64, would he (Nixon) still get the GOP nomination in 1968 or would someone else would? :::Hard to say. I don't know how much he was a reaction against Goldwater, or how much of that reaction was anything other than a hankering for the only recent Republican ticket that didn't get hosed. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:58, April 25, 2019 (UTC) ::You know, it would be pretty fun if Rocky won New York in '64 be lost the election since it's rare for a Republican candidate to win New York while losing the election. It only happened thrice (John C. Frémont in 1856, Charles Evans Hughes in 1916, and Thomas Dewey in 1948) and Rocky presumably winning the Empire State would make it the fourth and most likely final time. I wonder how close New York would be in the hypothetical election, given that New York was still a powerful swing-state back then and Rocky was popular in the state. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 18:00, April 25, 2019 (UTC) :::I wouldn't necessary call this version of LBJ's victory a landslide Turtle Fan. LBJ's real life 1964 win over Goldwater was a landslide, Dwight Eisenhower's victories over Aldai Stevenson in 1952 and '56 were landslides, FDR's victories over his four opponents were landslides, Richard Nixon's victory over George McGovern in 1972 was a landslide, and Ronald Reagan's victory over Walter Mondale in 1984 was a landslide. A somewhat wide margin defeating Rockefeller and Wallace (or whoever segregationist Southern Dem you choose), but not really a landslide. Given that Rocky would win more states than Goldwater ever did and would carry a lot more popular votes, LBJ's victory in this alternate 1964 election won't be a landslide. Speaking of a state-by-state analysis Turtle Fan, I think I'll list the states that I think either one of the three candidates would have probably won. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 15:25, May 1, 2019 (UTC) ::::We need medium sized government. Not too big but not too small either. If we had big government, we'ed slowly loose are rights. If the government is too small, however, large businesses will rule and the government would be too weak to stop them. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 19:00, July 15, 2019 (UTC) Alternate 1964 State-by-State Analysis Well, as I said yesterday, I am now going to create a state-by-state analysis of this alternate 1964 election to see whether each of the 50 states (and D.C.) goes to either Johnson, Rockefeller or Wallace. This may take a while and may take a few edits. Post you thoughts down below. * Alabama - Strong Wallace. It's his home state after all. * Alaska - Lean Rockefeller. * Arizona - Swing state, could go either way. Without Goldwater though, the state might flip to Johnson but I'm not sure. * Arkansas - Strong Wallace. * California - Lean Johnson. * Colorado - Lean Rockefeller. * Connecticut - Swing state, could go either way by lean towards Johnson. * Delaware - Lean Johnson. * Florida - All three candidates would do well in this state. However, given the split between the normal and Southern Democrats, the GOP and Rocky would probably pull out a narrow plurality in Florida. * Georgia - Lean Wallace. Johnson could win it though. Either way, the state is close. * Hawaii - Strong Johnson. Rocky might do alright by the state probably won't vote for him and Wallace obviously won't win it. * Idaho - Lean Rockefeller. * Illinois - Lean Johnson. * Indiana - Likely Rockefeller. * Iowa - Swing state, could go either way. * Kansas - Likely Rockefeller. * Kentucky - Narrow win for Johnson. Due to vote splitting in the Southern region of the country, Kentucky will likely be close. Wallace might do well in this state and may come in second against Rockefeller, who would likely preform poorly due to him having little appeal in the South. * Louisiana - Strong Wallace. * Maine - Strong Rockefeller. Maine had been a Republican stronghold since the beginning of the party and had voted for a GOP presidential candidate in every election from 1856 to 1960 (except for 1912, where Woodrow Wilson won the state with a plurality due to Theodore Roosevelt's Progressives splitting the vote against Republican William Howard Taft) and it would be unlikely for the Pine Tree State to flip to Johnson in this situation. Maine will also likely one of Rocky's strongest states. He also born there, so birth-state advantage, too. * Maryland - Likely Johnson. * Massachusetts - Strong Johnson. The Bay State has been a Democratic-leaning swing state since 1928 and only went back to the GOP for Eisenhower in both '52 and '56. Kennedy easily won the state in 1960 and would likely vote for Johnson. Rocky would likely do a lot better than Goldwater had, but would likely loose Massachusetts by a good margin. * Michigan - Possibly to Johnson. Rockefeller might win the state if he has George Romney as his running mate, but it would be close. Wallace might preform well with the Unionized workers, though. * Minnesota - Johnson wins. Given that his running mate Hubert Humphrey is from this state, he'll win it for sure. * Mississippi - Strong Wallace. * Missouri - Johnson wins by a plurality due to Wallace's campaign. * Montana - Likely Rockefeller * Nebraska - Likely Rockefeller * Nevada - Likely Johnson. * New Hampshire - Strong Rockefeller. New Hampshire had been a Republican-leaning swing state since the beginning of the party and it would be unlikely for the Granite State to flip to Johnson in this situation. Picture New Hampshire being one of Rocky's strongest states. * New Jersey - Swing state, could go either way. * New Mexico - Lean Johnson. * New York - Probably Rockefeller. Although Rocky is from here, the Empire State was a powerful swing-state at the time and would likely be close. Given that it's Rocky's home state and he served as the governor, he probably win it narrowly though Johnson would run behind in a close second. Given that Wallace actually got more than 5% of the popular vote in the OTL 1968 election, he might get a notable amount of votes.Also, if Rocky wins New York, it would be the fourth and most likely final time that the Empire State voted for a losing Republican candidate (the first being John C. Frémont in 1856, the second being Charles Evans Hughes in 1916, and the third and OTL final one being Thomas Dewey in 1948). * North Carolina - Johnson wins by a plurality due to Wallace's campaign. * North Dakota - Likely Rockefeller * Ohio - Swing state. Although the Buckeye State has long had a Republican lean, the state tends to favor the incumbent. With that, I think Johnson will win the state very narrowly. * Oklahoma - Lean Johnson. While Oklahoma had voted Republic for most of its presidential elections, given that Johnson is from neighboring Texas, he'll likely narrowly carry it. * Oregon - Lean Johnson * Pennsylvania - Swing state, could go either way depending on Rocky's running mate. If Rocky chooses William Scranton as his running mate, he wins the state. If he chooses anyone else, the state will likely go to Johnson. * Rhode Island - Strong Johnson, same as Massachusetts. * South Carolina - Strong Wallace. * South Dakota - Likely to Rockefeller * Tennessee - Johnson wins by a plurality due to Wallace's campaign. * Texas - Strong Johnson due to it being his home state. Rocky would likely do worse than Nixon had four years earlier but Wallace might do alright here. * Utah - Likely to Rockefeller. * Vermont - Strong Rockefeller. Vermont had been a Republican stronghold since the beginning of the party and had a 104 year (1856-1960) GOP winning streak on its side (the longest of any state thus far) and it would be unlikely for the Green Mountain State to flip to Johnson in this situation. Vermont will continue its long Republican trend for a while. Picture Vermont being one of Rocky's strongest states. * Virginia - Same as Florida, Rocky by a hair. * Washington - Lean Johnson. * Washington, DC - Strong Johnson. This is kinda obvious. * West Virginia - Strong Johnson. The Unionized coal miners will mostly vote for Johnson. While Rocky might do better than Goldwater in the state, he will not win it. Wallace might actually do alright in the state as well. * Wisconsin - Swing state, lean towards Johnson though. * Wyoming - Probably to Rockefeller. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 17:50, May 2, 2019 (UTC) :::Would Wallace even bother running there (Michigan)? Turtle Fan (talk) 14:25, May 3, 2019 (UTC) ::::I never said that Wallace would run in Michigan, I said that he might preform well with the Unionized workers in the state. I only said that because in the OTL 1968 election, Wallace surprisingly did well in Michigan with the normally Democratic-voting blue collar working class that had become disillusioned with the race riots and civil rights. He got around 10.04% of the popular vote that election though Humphrey won the state. I'm not sure if he'll match his OTL 4 years later results in the alternate 1964 election or not, but I'll leave that up to you and the others Turtle Fan. :::::I didn't realize he'd bothered getting on their ballot, as he was promoting a specifically regional . . . "interest." Still, as we've learned to our sorrow, Michigan has more rednecks than one would like to think. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:24, May 4, 2019 (UTC) ::::::To be fair, while he was a segregationist bastard, Wallace was able to do pretty well far outside his specific region (the Deep South). I already told you about Michigan so I'll tell you a few other states he got more than 5% of the vote. In New York, Wallace got 5.29% of the vote, mostly from the suburban and exurban counties around the New York City, and reached double figures in some wholly Italian-American precincts (possibly due to racial tensions). He also did well in some of the Western States such as Utah, Idaho and Oklahoma. Past elections (especially with major third party contenders) are interesting, aren't they? --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 14:55, May 4, 2019 (UTC) :::Did they (D.C.) have the vote by this time? I thought that came later. Turtle Fan (talk) 14:25, May 3, 2019 (UTC) ::::Turtle Fan, Washington D.C. was given the right to vote under the 23rd Amendment of the United States Constitution. The amendment was ratified on March 29, 1961 and D.C. voted in a presidential election for the first time in the OTL 1964 US Presidential Election. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 18:40, May 3, 2019 (UTC) :::::Huh, I thought it was later for some reason. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:24, May 4, 2019 (UTC) ::::::Whatever. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 14:55, May 4, 2019 (UTC)